Bombay High Court
Harish Vasu Shetty vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 November, 2017
Bench: A.M. Badar
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2017
HARISH VASU SHETTY )...APPLICANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b. Mr.M.G.Shukla, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms.A.A.Takalkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 13th NOVEMBER 2017
JUDGMENT :
1 Heard. Admit. Heard finally with consent of the
parties as record and proceedings has already been called by this
court in pursuant to the order dated 4th April 2017.
2 The revision petitioner was an accused in Crime No.I-
52 of 2005 registered with Kashimira Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under Section 25(1-
avk 1/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, registered at the instance of PW2
Vilas Chougule, Police Sub-Inspector. After investigation of the
said crime, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the present
revision petitioner/accused.
3 Case of the prosecution, as reflected from the charge-
sheet, was to the effect that the Superintendent of Police had
issued a letter dated 23rd March 2005 to the effect that within
jurisdiction of the Thane (Rural) Police, several persons illegally
possessing fire-arms are residing. The Superintendent of Police,
Thane (Rural) further directed all heads of the police stations
under his jurisdiction to make inquiry and collect evidence. The
First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Police Sub-Inspector
Vilas Chougule further shows that vide letter dated 3rd February
2005, the Senior Police Inspector of the Crime Detection Branch
furnished list of 25 arms license holders to the concerned officer
of Mon District of Nagaland State for verification and vide letter
dated 10th February 2005, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Mon,
Nagaland, informed that all 25 Arms License sent for verification
avk 2/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
are forged. The First Informant further reported that the revision
petitioner/accused Harish Shetty resides within the jurisdiction of
Kashimira Police Station and he is one amongst those 25 persons
holding the forged Arm License holding the forged Arm License.
He has registered that forged Arms License allegedly issued in his
favour by the Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, in the Office
of the Collector Thane, and thereby cheated the said offence.
4 During the course of investigation in this crime, First
Informant Police Sub-Inspector Vilas Chougule, seized the weapon
i.e. 32 Bore Revolver of Webley and Scott Company with 8
cartridges as well as the alleged forged license from the present
revision petitioner/accused under panchnama (Exhibits 44) and
deposited those articles with the Malkhana under a receipt
(Exhibit 45). It is alleged that the Investigating Officer had
obtained a report from the Extra Assistant Commissioner/Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, that the Arms License bearing
no.3208/NL/Mon possessed by the revision petitioner/accused
and allegedly issued by the said Deputy Commissioner, Mon,
avk 3/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Nagaland, has been verified from the office record of the said
office and it is found to have been forged. The said license was
not issued in favour of the revision petitioner/accused, but it was
issued in favour of a person named Wagwing Konyak of Nagaland.
Report of Ballastic examination of the seized fire-arms was also
collected during the cause of the investigation.
5 On filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (JMFC) was pleased to frame the Charge
and for the sake of convenience, it is necessary to reproduce the
Charge, so framed, against the revision petitioner/accused. It
reads thus :
" CHARGE
I, N.R.Indalkar, Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Thane do
hereby charge you
Harish Vaasu Shetty
aged 46 years,
R/at A/24, Galanagar, J.N.Rd.,
Mulund (West), Mumbai.
as follows :
That on 08/04/2005 at 10.15 a.m. at 103,
Silver Harimitage, Mira gaothamn, Bd.Vishnu
Mandir, Dist.Thane, you above named accused,
avk 4/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
along with one absconding accused, in furtherance
of your common intention, dishonestly prepared
forged Revolver License as given by Dy.
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland State which
purported to be a record of the public register and
that you thereby committed an offence punishable
under Sec.466 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and within the cognizance of this Court.
Secondly,
That on above date, time and place you
above named accused, along with one absconding
accused, in furtherance of your common intention,
forged Revolver License as given by Dy.
Commssioner, Mon, Nagaland State purporting to
be a valuable security, and you have thereby
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 467
r/w 34 of the Inidan Penal Code and within the
cognizance of this Court.
Thirdly,
That on above date, time and place you
above named accused, along with one absconding
accused, in furtherance of your common intention,
forged Revolver License given by Dy.
avk 5/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland State intending that
it shall be used for the purpose of cheating to The
Collector of Thane and that you have thereby
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 468
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within the
cognizance of this Court.
Fourthly,
That on above date, time and place you
above named accused, in furtherance of your
common intention, fraudulently used a genuine
document i.e. Revolver License as given by Dy.
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland State, which you
knew at the time you used it to be a forged
document and that you thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 471 r/w 34 of
the India Penal Code and within the cognizance of
this Court.
Lastly,
That on above date, time and place, you
above named accused along with absconding
accused were found in possession with Revolver
without holding any license in contravention of
Section 3 and thereby you have committed an
avk 6/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
offence punishable under Sec. 25(1-B)(a) of the
Arms Act and within the cognizance of this Court.
And I do hereby direct you to face the trial
on the said charges."
6 In support of the Charge, the prosecution examined
two witnesses. Maruti Madhvi, the then Clerk working with the
Home Branch of the Office of the Collector, Thane, is examined as
PW1. Investigating Officer Vilas Chougule, Police Sub-Inspector, is
examined as PW2. Certain documents filed with the charge-sheet
are exhibited during the course of their evidence through these
witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the learned JMFC, Thane,
while deciding RCC No.637 of 2007 was pleased to hold that the
present revision petitioner/accused along with the absconding
accused, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly
prepared forged Arms License and exhibited it to be the record of
the public register. It is further held that the present revision
petitioner/accused along with the absconding accused, in
furtherance of their common intention, forged the Arms License
for the purpose of cheating and used that forged Arms License as
avk 7/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
genuine. The learned trial court further held that the prosecution
has proved that the revision petitioner/accused was possessing a
revolver without having a license for is acquisition and possession.
With these finding, the revision petitioner/accused came to be
convicted of offence punishable under Section 466, 467, 468, 471
of the IPC and under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years
with a direction to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable
under Sections 466 of the IPC. For offences punishable under
Sections 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and under Section 25(1-B)(a) of
the Arms Act, similar sentence is imposed on the revision
petitioner/accused, with a further direction that all substantive
sentence shall run concurrently. The seized fire-arms and
cartridges were directed to be sent to the District Magistrate,
Thane, for disposal according to law.
7 Feeling dissatisfied with this judgment and order of
conviction recorded in RCC No.637 of 2007 against him by the
avk 8/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
learned JMFC, Thane, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an
appeal bearing No.194 of 2015 and by the impugned judgment
and order dated 31st March 2017, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Thane, was pleased to dismiss the said appeal by
upholding the conviction as well as the sentence imposed on the
revision petitioner/accused, with similar findings.
8 I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the
revision petitioner/accused. He argued that no Charge for the
offence punishable under Sections 465 and 420 of the IPC was
framed and explained to the revision petitioner/accused, and
therefore, he could not have been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Similarly,
for want of prior sanction as envisaged by Section 39 of the Indian
Arms Act, the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section
25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act was not permissible and therefore, the
resultant conviction and sentence is bad in law.
avk 9/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
9 The learned APP supported the impugned judgments
and orders passed by the courts below by submitting that the case
is based on documentary evidence and the documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution unerringly points out commission of
offence alleged against the revision petitioner/accused.
10 I have considered the rival submissions and also
perused the record and proceedings carefully. It is well settled
that normally revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised only in
exceptional cases, when there is glaring defect in procedure or
there is manifest error on the point of law, which has clearly
resulted in miscarriage of justice. Evidence cannot be re-
appreciated or re-appraised and finding of fact cannot be upset,
unless and until it is shown that it is perverse or suffers from an
error of law. Sufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground to set
aside the finding of fact recorded by the courts below. If on the
basis of evidence on record, no reasonable man could have come
to the conclusion arrived at by the courts below, the revisional
court can interfere with the impugned order. Keeping in mind
these principles, let us examine the case in hand.
avk 10/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
11 Perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents
annexed thereto reflects the prosecution case. It is case of the
prosecution that the revision petitioner/accused on 31 st July 2003
(Exhibit 32) applied to the District Magistrate, Thane, for
registering his Arms License bearing no.3208/NL/MON issued by
the Licensing Authority from Nagaland State for possessing the
revolver/pistol. The said Arms License as well as the weapon was
ultimately registered at the Office of the Collector, District
Magistrate, Thane, after getting a favourable report dated 4th
August 2003 (Exhibit 34) from the license issuing authority i.e.
the Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland. Subsequently, it is
revealed that the Arms License bearing no.3208/NL/MON for
possessing revolver/pistol by the revision petitioner/accused was a
forged license and the Verification Report received by the
Collector, Thane, in respect of the same is also a forged document.
During the course of investigation, according to the prosecution
case, the Arms License allegedly produced by the revision
petitioner/accused before the Collector, District Magistrate, Thane,
was again got verified from the Office of the Deputy
avk 11/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, vide letter dated 22 nd April 2005
sent by the Senior Inspector of Police, Kashimira, to the license
issuing authority (Exhibit 46) and the report received from the
Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, vide letter dated 3rd June
2005 (Exhibit 47) reflected that the said license was not issued by
the said licensing authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Mon,
Nagaland. Thus, the prosecution case is to the effect that the
present revision petitioner/accused along with co-accused, had
infact, prepared a false document with intent to commit fraud, by
getting it registered with the Office of the Collector District
Magistrate, Thane. The prosecution case is also to the effect that
the said forged Arms License was used for the purpose of cheating
by using it as a genuine Arms License issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland. It is worthwhile to note here that
considering the nature of averments made against the present
revision petitioner/accused in the charge-sheet, it was incumbent
on the part of the learned trial court to frame the proper Charge
for the offence punishable under Section 465 read with Section 34
as well as Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the
avk 12/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
revision petitioner/accused as averments are also to the effect that
this was done with the aid of one absconding accused. However,
no such Charge is framed and explained to the revision
petitioner/accused causing prejudice to him in defending the case
against him, as seen from the record.
12 One of the Charge framed against the revision
petitioner/accused is for the offence punishable under Section 466
read with Section 34 of the IPC and the same is held to be proved
against him. A reading of this Charge shows that the revision
petitioner/accused was explained that he dishonestly prepared
forged revolver license purported to be given by the Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, which is purported to be a record
of the public register and thereby he has committed the offence
punishable under Section 466 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Section 466 of the IPC deals with forgery of record of the court or
of public register etc. What was explained to the revision
petitioner/accused by this Charge is to the effect that he had
committed forgery of record of a public register. This Charge is
also held to be proved against him by the courts below.
avk 13/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
13 The first witness examined by the prosecution to prove
the Charge is Maruti Madhvi, the then Clerk working in the Home
Section of the Office of the Collector, District Magistrate, Thane.
Evidence of this witness shows that the revision
petitioner/accused came to the Office of the Collector and
tendered an application for registration of the Arms License and
therefore the letter was sent by his office to the Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, for the purpose of verification.
This witness submitted that the report Exhibit 34 was then
submitted to his office by the revision petitioner/accused. Then
the report came to be forwarded by him to the Resident Deputy
Collector as well as the Collector, Thane. Cross-examination of
this witness shows that he has no personal knowledge about the
forgery as well as forgery for the purpose of cheating by using
forged document as genuine, allegedly committed by the revision
petitioner/accused. His cross-examination reveals that acting on
the Arms License as well as the Verification Report Exhibit 34, the
Arms License of the revision petitioner/accused came to be
avk 14/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
registered. This was done, after getting necessary orders from the
Tahsildar (Home), Resident Deputy Collector and the Collector,
Thane. This witness nowhere states that the report at Exhibit 34
purported to be issued by Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland,
informing about the genuineness of the Arms License bearing
no.3208/NL/MON is a forged report or that the Arms License is a
forged document. Infact, through evidence of this witness, the
copy of the application dated 31st July 2003 purportedly submitted
by the revision petitioner/accused for registration of the Arms
License in his favour was got exhibited with the observations by
the learned trial Magistrate that such marking of the Exhibit
should not construed as proof of the document as the document
is a true copy of the original document. However, perusal of the
impugned judgment and order shows that infact this copy of the
application at Exhibit 32 was read in evidence for inferring the
guilt of the revision petitioner/accused without its proof. Thus,
the unproved document is used for recording the conviction as
well as the resultant sentence.
avk 15/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
14 Next comes evidence of Investigating Officer PW2
Vilas Chougule, Police Sub-Inspector. His evidence is too cryptic
and vague. By his evidence, what is done is to mark exhibit
numbers on the document without proving their contents. His
evidence does not show that he has proved the contents of the
documents which are marked as Exhibit during the course of his
evidence. This witness has deposed that the letter bearing
signature of the Senior Police Inspector (Exhibit 46) was sent to
the Commissioner, Nagaland, for verification of the Arms License.
Then, this witness has stated that reply to this letter is at Exhibit
47. Perusal of the record shows that the document at Exhibit 47
is, infact, a report purported to be sent by the Extra Assistant
Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, on 3 rd
June 2005, in the matter of verification of the Arms License
bearing no.3208/NL/MON. This document at Exhibit 47 contains
a recital that as per the office record, the said license was not
issued by the said office and it was issued originally in favour of
Wagwing Konyak of Nagaland. For proving this Verification
avk 16/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Report at Exhibit 47, examination of the author of the said
document was must. The prosecution ought to have summoned
atleast the Record Keeper of the said office for proving contents of
the said document. Even evidence of PW2 Vilas Chougule, Police
Sub-Inspector, does not show that the document at Exhibit 47 was
received by the police station in the ordinary course being
received through the post. How this document at Exhibit 47 came
in possession of the prosecuting agency is a fact which is not at all
explained by the prosecution, leave apart proving the contents
thereof. PW2 Police Sub-Inspector Vilas Chougule, the
Investigating Officer, then deposed that he has received report of
Ballastic Expert (Exhibit 49). His cross-examination reveals that
he does not know the procedure of obtaining the Arms License.
He admitted the fact that the Arms License of the revision
petitioner/accused was registered at the Office of the Collector,
Thane, on 14th August 2003, and it was registered after
verification of the address of the revision petitioner/accused by
the Office of the Collector, Thane.
avk 17/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
15 This is all evidence available on record against the
revision petitioner/accused. The documents which are purported
to be pressed in service by the prosecution against the revision
petitioner/accused for establishing forgery and forgery for the
purpose of cheating by using as genuine a forged document, are
not at all proved by the prosecution. Similarly, there is no iota of
evidence on record to the effect that the document at Exhibit 34,
which is a letter dated 4th August 2003, purportedly issued by
Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, informing the Office of the
Collector that the Arms License bearing no.3208/NL/MON was
issued in the name of the revision petitioner/accused is a letter
forged by the accused person.
16 Now let us examine the legal position, so far as
averments against the present revision petitioner/accused
reflected from the charge-sheet bereft of the defective Charge
framed and explained to him. Section 463 of the IPC defines the
term Forgery. It reads thus :-
avk 18/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
"463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false
documents or false electronic record or part of a
document or electronic record, with intent to
cause damage or injury, to the public or to any
person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause
any person to part with property, or to enter into
any express or implied contract, or with intent to
commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery."
What amounts to making a false document is prescribed by
Section 464 of the IPC. It reads thus :
"464 - Making a false document - A person is said
to make a false document or false electronic
record -
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document
or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or
part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any
electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of
a document or the authenticity of the electronic
signature,
avk 19/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
with the intention of causing it to be believed that
such document or part of document, electronic
record or electronic signature was made, signed,
sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by
the authority of a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made, signed,
sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly - Who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic
record in any material part thereof, after it has
been made, executed or affixed with electronic
signature either by himself or by any other person,
whether such person be living or dead at the time
of such alteration; or
Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a
document or an electronic record or to affix his
electronic signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or
that by reason of deception practised upon him,
he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
avk 20/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Thus, essential elements of the offence of forgery are :-
a) the making of a false document as part of it.
b) such making must be with an intent -
i) to cause damage or injury to (1) public or (2) any person
or
ii) to support any claim or title or
iii)to cause any person to part with property or
iv)to cause any person to enter into express or implied
contract or
v) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
17 To bring home an offence punishable under Section
465 of the IPC it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to
prove that the accused had made a false document as understood
in the three clauses enumerated in Section 464 of the IPC. The
second requirement for proof of commission of offence punishable
under Section 465 of the IPC is that such a false document was
made by the accused with the intentions such as to cause damage
or injury to public or to any individual, to support a claim or title
or to cause any person to part with the property or to cause any
person to enter into contract or to commit fraud or that fraud may
avk 21/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
be committed. Section 25 of the IPC provides that a person is said
to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to
defraud but not otherwise. Fraud is a deliberate deception to
secure unfair or unlawful gain or to deprive a victim of a legal
right. False document is said to have been made when a person
dishonestly or fraudulently makes a document with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such document was made by some
other. To constitute forgery, there must be deceit or intention to
deceive coupled with actual or possible injury to others.
18 In the case in hand, it was necessary for the
prosecution to establish by a clear and cogent evidence that the
revision petitioner/accused dishonestly or fraudulently made,
signed and executed documents purported to be the the Arms
License bearing no.3208/NL/MON issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, as well as Verification Report
dated 4th August 2003 (Exhibit 34) purportedly indicating the fact
that the said Arms License is genuine, with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such a document was made, signed,
avk 22/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
sealed and executed by the authority of Deputy Commissioner,
Mon, Nagaland. In addition, the prosecution was enjoined to
establish that the revision petitioner/accused was knowing that
said documents i.e. the Arms License bearing no.3208/NL/MON
and its Verification Report dated 4th August 2003 (Exhibit 34)
were not signed, sealed and executed by the Office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland. In addition, the prosecution, for
proving the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused for the alleged
offences, ought to have proved the Report Exhibit 47 by
examining the author of that Report.
19 The prosecution was also duty bound to show that the
revision petitioner/accused had committed forgery and that he did
it with the intention that such forged document shall be used for
cheating and the revision petitioner/accused had intended to
cheat the public servants from the Office of the Collector, Thane,
by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the said office to grant /
register the Fire-Arm and the Arms License at the Office of the
Collector, Thane. Using a document as genuine when the
avk 23/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
document is known to be a forged document is a gravamen of the
offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC. Use as genuine
of any document which is known or believed to be a forged
document is requirement of Section 471 of the IPC. To bring the
case under the preview of Section 471 of the IPC, it needs to be
established that the accused knew or had very good reason to
believe that the document he was using is a forged document.
20 In the case in hand, the revision petitioner/accused
had not accepted / admitted the fact that he has executed the
disputed documents such as the Arms License or the Verification
Report (Exhibit 34). When issuance of the license by the Deputy
Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, is a disputed fact and when the
revision petitioner/accused is being prosecuted on that count,
then the evidence that the document is forged and was not issued
by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, should
have been adduced by the prosecution by calling atleast the
Record Keeper of that office. Truth of facts stated in the document
and the document viz., the Arms License and Verification Report
avk 24/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
(Exhibit 34) itself was in issue. Hence, it was incumbent on the
part of the prosecution to get the fact that the document is forged,
proved by calling atleast the concerned officer from the Office of
the Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland, who would have
vouched about the said documents being forged. By mere filing of
the document it cannot be presumed that the same are false
documents.
21 Moreover, perusal of the entire evidence does not
show that the prosecution has attempted to place on record
allegedly forged Arms License bearing no.3208/NL/MON
tendered by the revision petitioner/accused to the District
Magistrate, Thane, for the purpose of registration. There is no
attempt to show that said Arms License is a forged license.
22 In this view of the matter, it is seen that inadmissible
evidence was used by the courts below for convicting the revision
petitioner/accused for offences punishable under Sections 466,
467, 468, 471 of the IPC. Similarly, when there was no evidence
avk 25/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
on record to show that the revision petitioner/accused had forged
the Arms License, for the purpose of cheating the Public Officer, he
came to be convicted. Perversity in the impugned judgment and
order of conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for offences
punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC is writ
large from perusal of the evidence on record.
23 Now let us examine whether courts below were
justified in convicting the revision petitioner/accused for the
offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms
Act, 1959. Section 25(1-B)(a) provides punishment for acquiring
or possessing or carrying any fire-arm or ammunition in
contravention of Section 3 of the said Act. Section 3 of the Arms
Act, 1959, deals with license for acquisition and possession of fire-
arms and ammunition. It provides that no person shall acquire,
have in his possession or carry any fire-arm or ammunition unless
he holds in this behalf a license issued in accordance with the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, as well as the Rules made
thereunder. Breach of this provision is made punishable by
avk 26/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 39 of the Arms Act
provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person
in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous
sanction of the District Magistrate. In the case in hand, the
prosecution has not proved the sanction for prosecuting the
revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 25(1-B)(a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The sanction order is not produced and proved on record by
examining the sanctioning authority. As such, the conviction
rendered for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of
the Arms Act, 1959, for contravention of provisions of Section 3
thereof is per se illegal and cannot be sustained.
24 It is seen that vide panchnama Exhibit 44, the
Investigator i.e. PW2 Police Sub-Inspector Vilas Chougule has
shown that a 32 Bore Revolver of Webley and Scott Company with
8 cartridges is seized from the revision petitioner/accused. In
terms of the impugned judgment and order, the said fire-arm and
ammunition is directed to be sent to the Office of the District
avk 27/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
Magistrate, Thane, for disposal, according to the provisions of law.
The revision petitioner/accused has neither claimed the said fire-
arm or ammunition shown to have been seized from him nor it is
his defence that the said fire-arm or ammunition belongs to him as
owner with a valid license issued in terms of provisions of Section
3 of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence, so far as disposal of the property
shown to have been seized from the revision petitioner/accused is
concerned, no infirmity is found in the impugned judgments and
orders of the courts below.
25 In the result, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) Criminal Revision Application No.217 of 2007 is partly
allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
JMFC, 7th Court, Thane, in RCC No.637 of 2007 on 2 nd
November 2015 as well as the impugned judgment and
order dated 31st March 2017 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Thane, in Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2015, so far as
avk 28/29
22-REVN-217-2017.doc
convicting the revision petitioner/accused for offences
punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC
and under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and
sentencing him accordingly for those offences are quashed
and set aside.
iii)The revision petitioner/accused stands acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 of
the IPC and under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act,
1959. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
iv)Needless to mention that the impugned judgments and
orders in so far as they relate to the disposal of the seized
property, are maintained.
v) The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 29/29
